Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

Byron · 2002-08-02 06:39:02

We've had plenty of discussion of the balance of security and personal freedoms.. i.e., the State vs. the Individual. But there has been little discussion on the actual mechanism of government on a hypothetical Martian settlement/colony, other then the general idea of "this is the way it should be done."

As a person who is constantly seeking practical solutions to these kind of problems, I would love to see what some of your ideas of how an actual governing structure would be set up on Mars.

There's not many among us on this board that would disagree with the fact that a Martian society will be far different than here on Earth because of the deadly native environment and the large amount of interdependence upon each other to ensure continued survival within the settlement. So, naturally, the "Me, Myself, & I" instinct of humans here on Earth will have to be mitigated to a significant degree in order to make a Martian community work. Since nearly everyone will be dependent on everyone else, people with selfish attitudes could be quite detrimental to the community as a whole.

As for the actual system of government, that "problem" may very well be taken care of by the "sponsor" of the settlement...and that enforcement of that governing structure would be carried out by the simple matter of continued support from Earth...if the "colony" refuses to cooperate, the supplies from Earth cease, and bye-bye colony...LOL...

HOWEVER....I do think that the day-to-day governance will be left up to the colonists themselves, within reasonable guidelines, of course. The vast distances and delayed communications will make governing from afar problematic at the very least, and it will be in the best interests for everyone involved for the Martian settlers to take care of their internal matters as much as possible. This having been said, I'm curious to what would actually work best in a small, "intimate" setting, especially in communities of less than a 1000 population. I've stated in previous posts that I think the "big, happy family" model would work best, like the hippie communes of the '60's. The idea of business and profit would certainly not work in this kind of environment....everyone would have to share the labor and resources equally to the greatest extent that is possible.

As for what I think would work best in this hypothetical settlement, I would propose a system of "tiered" representation...which would involve the populace electing a council, perhaps comprising as many as 10% of the entire population, which then would elect a much smaller group of people, like a senate. The "senate" would then elect or appoint an executive leader or an executive panel. This system would keep "politiking" at a minimum, and it would allow just about anyone to take place in the governing of the community at some point or another...and the community would be protected from the dangers of direct democracy. Only the smartest, most responsible people would be able to rise to the position of top leadership, which would *help* (but not guarantee) to ensure that we don't have despotic leaders stepping in and taking over things for their own selfish desires.

Anyhow, this is just an idea of mine I'm throwing out...what are some of your ideas? I would also like to see some discussion of "alternate" economic systems...if there is no profit motive, how will people establish a system of providing goods and services with each other in a fair and equitable manner? Would the "laws" of economics here on Earth be rendered moot on Mars, or do they apply everywhere, no matter what?

Enuff for now...

B

clark · 2002-08-02 07:46:20

Interesting suggestion with the tiered model Byron. However I don't think it would neccessarily lead to the "best and brightest" being the leaders. In the system you suggested, people choose a council to represent their interests by picking the executive council, which then represents the interest of the council, and also picks the people they will follow, etc...

With each successive tier, you move the governing body further from the actual people that are being goverened- the only people beholden to the People is the Council- the executive council is beholden to who picked them, whoever they pick is beholden to them, etc. I'm not saying it wouldn't work per se, just that there would have to be some strong checks and balances to make sure that the final leader chosen is actually representing the views of the people.

Remember, the People have the power- when they choose a leader, they concentrate that power into that group, or that individual- those individuals then represent the power of the People... but in your system, the power is funneled further and further away from the people without any clear lines of responsibility.

What I thinkk would make sense for mars would be two levels of government: Planetary, and local. That's it.

The Planetary government exsists to settle disputes between different localities or between individuals and their localities, manage the environment (in whatever form), handle foreign affairs, create new habitats, and enforce whatever overarching bill of rights that exsist. The Planetary government dosen't get involved with domestic affirs unless it affets the environment or there is a dispute between two or more localities.

The local governments exsist to run day to day operations. They run the show in the habitats any way the people want as long as it does not violate the Planetary governments bill of rights and is fair and equitable to all people within the habitat (any disputes can be settled within the local governments judical system, with the final say by the planetary judical system)

You want anarchy- fine. But if in anarchy within the habitat you cause harm to another individual, the individual is not without recourse. You want monarchy, fine- tyrants would not be tolerated since any individual has the right to petition the planetary government which would then have the right to order compensation or punishment for the crimes.

Any law that is passed by a locality that persecutes certain people could always be challenged.

The Planetary government would own all habitats. The localities would lease the habitats- when they lease, they are in effect declaring that they are a city proper (this allows the planetary government to build homesteads that can grow over time). What we would be doing is having the planetary governemnt create livable land- and then leasing it to recoup the cost of building the hab and for funding of future habs. People within the localities can then figure out themselves how they are going to pay the lease- corporate sponsorship, taxes, grants, tourism, whatever.

People would want to become an incorporated city proper becuase that allows them greater representation within the planetary government, and would allow the individuals a greater say in their own locality (I would imagien a planetary proctorship while a locality was trying to become established).

Just some initial thoughts...

Palomar · 2002-08-03 22:52:34

*As for economics [which I know diddly-squat about]: First one must have supply and demand within the society itself; enough people to demand a certain product and someone with the ability to supply it. Right?

As for government, I don't mean to sound overly simplistic, but the ideas of Francis Hutcheson, an 18th century personage, come to mind; he wrote _Inquiry concerning Moral Good & Evil_ in 1725, wherein he defined a good citizen as someone who promoted the general good. He described the general good as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." This, to me, seems more realistically achievable and "do-able" than the Rousseauean "Will of Society."

I think it's just logical [again, I don't want to sound like I'm oversimplifying, because it's not my intention, I'm just tossing out some ideas] to look at the governmental structures of the nations with the government which has lasted longest with the least amount of crime, the highest consistent per capita growth, the most stable population [with regards to divorce rates, suicides, etc.], etc., etc., and draw on it. The 3-branch governmental ideal of the US [judicial, legislative, and executive] had its roots in England, thanks primarily to 2 English luminaries [Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke] and to Montesquieu [who was French nobility, a Baron, if I recall correctly].

We have so much experience and well documented history to draw on, when and if the time comes to create a bona-fide government on Mars. Not that I'm overly enthusiastic about government per se; I too would like the One Big Happy Family "Make Love, Not War" [thanks for the reminder, Phobos!] scenarios of the swinging 60s on Mars instead...

--Cindy

RobS · 2002-08-13 19:39:46

I think there are several factors about Martian governance that help us imagine what it will be like:

1. It will probably start out resembling governing structures the arrivals are most familiar with. Governance is an aspect of culture; it involves learned behaviors. A radical change in governance requires people to learn a lot of new behaviors about how they relate to each other, how they mediate differences, and how they coordinate the meeting of common needs.

2. It will gradually change as a distinctive Martian culture develops. Technology will have a lot to do with the form of that culture: cheaper, larger habitats with more space per person will produce different cultures from tiny, expensive, cramped, hard to maintain habitats. The lack of material diversity--no one will be able to run down to Kmart and buy one of 30,000 different products--will be quite a contrast to North American and European life.

3. The total population will have a huge effect on the type of society that can be expected. Six people on Mars for a few years and then leaving can have a kind of military organization, with a Commander chosen by the sending agency. Twelve can function rather like a family. A colony of 1,000 will need some sort of elections, at least for a representative council, maybe even for a local mayor. In between there will be transitional forms. Face to face relations work well until the population reaches several hundred; then everyone can't know everyone else well enough to relate informally, and more formal governing structures are usually needed. If there are a large number of small settlements and the population rotates around among them, face to face relationships may not work with even a few hundred people, because you might not have seen John Jones for two years because he was always in a different settlement than you.

4. The presence or absence of children will make a huge difference in culture and I suspect in governance. A settlement with twenty adults, including two couples who each have two children, will probably have a large amount of social life revolving around the four children, who will be exposed to 18 "aunts" and "uncles." The couples with children in some cases will form the social core of the community. The families may want to eat by themselves sometimes, so a common cafeteria may not provide all of the settlement's socializing. The families may have need for more personal space (including living rooms) than the others present. Education, child care, and children's health will be common issues requiring coordination, and probably generating friction. And if a child is born on Mars with serious handicaps there will be very difficult decisions to make about providing the necessary care and importing necessary medicines. Getting married and starting families will be decisions with serious implicatins for everyone else; they may have to watch your kids while you repair the air recirculation equipment. But at the same time, it will be virtually impossible to prevent marriage and family, and these things shouldn't be prevented, so the Mars community will have to figure out how to deal with the consequences.

5. Multiculturalism is a likely situation as well, because of the need to share the costs of sending people to Mars. Thus there will be differing views as to how to accommodate differnces, how to resolve issues, how to provide for families and children (and what to provide), etc. And all of that may be carried out in multiple languages as well (even if one is used in everyday work). It may take some time for the Marspeople to arrive at a consensus--a culture--of what works for them in the changing circumstances under which they live.

6. There may be some ethical and moral issues that Marspeople will have little more success in resolving that Earthers. Will abortions be allowed on Mars? How would you stop them? What family planning rules will be created and what do you do when they are broken? How well will a divorced husband and wife get along in a colony of fifty people? What will be the effect of jilted lovers on the social environment? How much alcohol consumption will be allowed, and when? At what point can housing be bought and sold? At what point can veterans who have lived in the colony decades and "paid their dues" be allowed to start private businesses? What about someone on Earth who really wants to go to Mars and can pay for the flight; can he or she live reclusively and write novels for a living, ignoring the other hundred or so people? I doubt Mars will solve these problems much better that we on Earth.

-- RobS

Phobos · 2002-08-14 22:33:33

2. It will gradually change as a distinctive Martian culture develops. Technology will have a lot to do with the form of that culture: cheaper, larger habitats with more space per person will produce different cultures from tiny, expensive, cramped, hard to maintain habitats. The lack of material diversity--no one will be able to run down to Kmart and buy one of 30,000 different products--will be quite a contrast to North American and European life.

I sometimes wonder how a Mars colony would view and implement human labor. I think it's possible that that a smallish colony might function in ways similiar to some Native American tribes where you just did what had to be done and then you had a lot of leisure time after that. I hope to God they don't institute a system of labor like we have where they have to work 20 hours a day doing uninspiring drudge work. Hopefully technology will have advanced to the point where they can be virtually freed from the 40 hour a week enslavement and occupy themselves with things that matter to them. The economy will have to be drastically reworked to accomodate something like that but it can be done.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-15 02:22:23

The governments of martian settlements might be similar to the governance system of Comunidad de los Horcones (click here). Los Horcones is based on B.F. Skinner's utopian novel Walden Two. The people of Los Horcones use scientific techniques to control their own and each others behavior. Their system of self-control and social-control is based on an experimental and scientific foundation.

Scott

C M Edwards · 2002-08-15 11:49:22

It seems that every time someone a discussion of potential government forms for Martian colonies, two contrasting notes appear: 1) Drastic economic shortages will be a fact of life in the first Mars colonies; and 2) Let's use forms of governance favored by societies enjoying the luxury of economic plenty. Something must be done to remedy or reconcile this.

Regarding Walden Two as a model for government, the social management style Dr. Skinner expounded on has actually seen extensive use in several places in the business community. Bureaucratic decision making structures follow similar mathematical models whether in business or government. The results of those experiments (directed at running businesses with measurable economic outputs rather than societies with less tangible outputs, but still indicative) lead me to believe that a society based strictly on the methods described by B.F. Skinner will quickly come to resemble the well known group from another fictional tale:

Dilbert.

Beware of any kind of government that both requires a lot of interference and refuses to tell you how it's going to work from one day to the next.

Regarding the economics of a Mars base, I think we have a lot to learn from the poorer cultures of the world. For example, the national economy of Argentina has collapsed over the past few years. But Argentinian economics has not. Barter has replaced money-driven economies in many places, and it often not the bare minimum "I want that and I'll give you this for it" that one might expect. Since there's so little money to work with, many of the Argentine people are trading in markets and clubs that apply modern economic principles to the barter system, printing trade tickets, establishing exchange rates, etc. These barter clubs are more like Sam's and Walmart than a barter session with your next-door neighbor. And they are building a sort of currency/money system as well. Barter Club vouchers are currently a harder currency than the Argentine peso and stand to replace it for many purposes if the national economy does not recover.

I suspect that the first Martians will look not to the US Federal Reserve Board but to the Argentine Barter Clubs for their first economic plans.

CME

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 13:02:09

It seems that every time someone a discussion of potential government forms for Martian colonies, two contrasting notes appear: 1) Drastic economic shortages will be a fact of life in the first Mars colonies; and 2) Let's use forms of governance favored by societies enjoying the luxury of economic plenty. Something must be done to remedy or reconcile this.

Well, both are viable futures. We could send people to Mars, with an inherent dependence on Earth, or people could go to Mars with complete (or near complete) autonomy. In the first sense, their local economy would be horribly depreciated. And in many ways, it would not even be a colony. I, personally, don't call Mars Direct a colonization process. And Mars Direct would undoubtedly have an economic shortage.

In the second sense, we would have the potential to create our own industries, and so on and so forth, so our economic problems are already answered.

I don't think we can reconcile these differences, because capitalism, and most economic policies, assume resources disappear, yet the laws of energy and mass say that resources will be around for quite a long time. Autonomy is completely contridictory to a capitalist society.

I think that trade can work in the way that you have described (it's quite interesting actually), however, I think that since colonies (or cities, or domes, or what have you) will be completely autonomous, trade for many things (especially raw materials) will basically be eliminated.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-16 15:34:47

Regarding Walden Two as a model for government, the social management style Dr. Skinner expounded on has actually seen extensive use in several places in the business community.

Dear Mr. Edwards:

The governance system of Comunidad de los Horcones is structurally very different from the fictional governance system of Walden Two. These governance systems are similar in that they are both based on scientific principles and an experimentalist doctrine. (If you go to the Los Horcones web site you will see that they describe their community as a "political experiment." The link to their site is in my previous message.)

The people of Los Horcones have adopted the term "personocracy" to describe their governance system. From an anthropological perspective, I think that their personocracy is philosophically similar to the governance system of a traditional Japanese village. They try to avoid being democratic (tyranny of the majority) and seek governance solutions that take into account and accommodate the needs of every person in the community, hence the term personocracy.

Scott G. Beach

C M Edwards · 2002-08-19 12:06:40

Hello Scott.

If the description on the website is to be believed, it appears I am in error regarding Comunidad de los Horcones. It's government is not bureaucratic, and therefore is unlikely to follow the same information transmission behaviors. (Perhaps they will add my misconception to their list. )

However, I wonder: do they have a Dilbert Problem unique to their own model?

CME

clark · 2002-08-19 12:42:35

If power is life on Mars, those who control the power, control life.

Imagine a situation whereby capitalism is the economic engine of choice for Mars. Every person can receive compensation for their labor based on the demand and supply rules established by a free-market.

The Energy Technicians, the ones that make sure the nuclear reactors are working, decide they as a group do not like a certain law passed by the democratically elected government. The Energy Technicians declare that they will go on strike, thereby endangering the saftey of everyone in the colony unless the laws passed by the government are undone.

Imagine that the group of energy technicans numbers just a few- but they are in agreement in maintaining their strike.

What do you do?
What can a government do?
How do you peacefully resolve the situation?
How do you prevent this situation?

Now, imagine the Ecological Technicans threaten to strike, endangering the air supply (bio-regeneration) and food supply. What are the options available to society in response to their threats or demands?

Any Mars Society will be composed of highly trained, highly specialized individuals- that's the only way to achieve the effeciency neccessary to make living on mars practical and doable.

As the people become more specialized, society makes an investment in them, expecting a greater return in their effeciency and ability to do the highly specialized things they are needed to do. A mechanic on strike has limited effect on our life- but a trauma physician on strike has a greater effect.

Take the current dispute with dock workers threatening to strike- if they do, it would effect the entire US economy (about a trillion dollars worth of economic damage potential).

So, what kind of government system is practical when small groups of individuals can effectively band together (based on critical skill sets) and run the show (or have effec tive veto of any legitimate decision made by a government)?

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-19 12:49:29

I wonder: do they have a Dilbert Problem unique to their own model?

CME:

I am not familiar enough with the Mr. Dilbert and his cohorts to be able to tell you if the people of Los Horcones have similar problems. I can tell you that the Los Horconans take their policy-making activities very seriously. They continually evaluate the effectiveness of their governance structure and will not hesitate to experimentally modify that structure when they find a systemic "problem."

The Los Horconans collect volumes of data about their behaviors and they deliberately control the evolution of their culture. In contrast, Mr. Dilbert and company seem to be trapped by their traditions. The Los Horconans are probably better able than any other people on Earth to undertake the task of designing and building human sociocultural systems that are adapted to Mars. That is exactly why I went to Los Horcones to study their "cultural engineering" techniques.

Scott

C M Edwards · 2002-08-20 11:51:47

Hello Clark and Scott.

Clark, the best form of central government for dealing with potential strikes and revolts among essential personnel is a dictatorship. For example, here in the United States of America, it is illegal for railroad and electrical power plant employees to strike. If they try it, the government immediately sends in its own negotiators for binding arbitration, and if that doesn't work the companies are authorized to fire and replace everyone. In time of war, military force is authorized. This is very helpful for the preservation of social order. Whenever a strike or revolt is threatened, the threatened companies simply lock out all of their employees and holler "STRIKE!" In comes the government, and the whole messy matter is cleared up in no time, with none of the messy business observed in other industries where the workers' unions decide who goes on strike and who doesn't.

Very clean, very orderly.

Scott, some of the most prevalent problems with bureaucratic heirarchies stem from their inefficiencies in passing information from one point to another within their own structure. Does the Los Horcones community have typical and/or unique methods of passing information within its structure, and are there any problems common with them?

CME

clark · 2002-08-20 12:06:10

If they try it, the government immediately sends in its own negotiators for binding arbitration, and if that doesn't work the companies are authorized to fire and replace everyone.

How exactly is that effective or even possible given the conditions on Mars? It works on earth, in most situations, becuase there are people who can replace those who wish to strike- however, on Mars, where would you get these people from?

Think of it like this: WW2: The scientists developing the A-bomb decide to go on strike unless all Japenese Americans are immediatly released and compensated for their imprisonment (which was sactioned by the Supreme Court).

The American government can't replace them, becuase they are the only ones who can do the job, and it needs to be done right away. That was my point with the Energy Technican personel on mars- they effectivly run the show becuase they can turn off the power through INACTION.

In time of war, military force is authorized.

Yet what military force can be used to make them do their job? You kill them, you are still in the same boat as when they were on strike. If you "hurt" them, then we accept torture as an aceptable means for enforcement of executive decree's.

I am not advocating one thing over another, I would just like some perspective on this issue.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-20 18:54:56

Scott, some of the most prevalent problems with bureaucratic heirarchies stem from their inefficiencies in passing information from one point to another within their own structure. Does the Los Horcones community have typical and/or unique methods of passing information within its structure, and are there any problems common with them?

Mr. Edwards:

The Los Horconans have weekly governance meetings that are attended by all of the members of the community. These meetings facilitate the transfer of management information to the whole community. They also draft policy statements and proposed rules and circulate those drafts and proposals through the community until they arrive at a consensus about what the policies and rules should be. They do not suffer from significant "information gaps." They realize that their governance system would probably not work for a larger community (e.g. 1,000 people or more).

Scott

C M Edwards · 2002-08-21 11:51:48

Hello Clark and Scott.

Clark, "binding arbitration" is generally exactly what occurs in those circumstances. The government puts pressure on both sides to resolve the situation, but their primary interest is in maintaining the services and not in who gets burned.

As for the idea of shooting and torturing people to make them do what you want, world history demonstrates that this often works in the short term. Actually giving the employees what they want -- the long term solution -- yields less immediate results when you've procrastinated so long someone finally turns off the air. By then it's too late to say "tomorrow".

Scott, many bureaucracies hold meetings as well, though the audiences vary in scope. Alas, the passing of policy memoranda throughout the organization is not unknown, there, either.

However, in most bureaucratic heirarchies, policy memos are not policy drafts/proposals/surveys, but "final" ultimatums issued from specific points in the command chain. Do individual people unrelated to the origination of the policy have full authority to suggest changes of the Los Harcones policy drafts, and what criteria are employed to say which suggestions will be implemented? Does Los Harcones have an equivalent to the memo/ultimatum common in bureaucratic heirarchies?

CME

clark · 2002-08-21 12:02:26

Clark, "binding arbitration" is generally exactly what occurs in those circumstances. The government puts pressure on both sides to resolve the situation, but their primary interest is in maintaining the services and not in who gets burned.

I understand the process, thank you. However, how does the binding arbitration help or even address the situation I have outlined? How does it deal with the centers of power that undermine the basis of the system that makes binding arbitration work?

How can a government enter into "binding arbitration" with a group that wishes to undo the will of the people, yet is also dependant upon these people for exsistence? The system only works if the people can be replaced- how does the system work when the people are not replacable?

As for the idea of shooting and torturing people to make them do what you want, world history demonstrates that this often works in the short term.

I would argue that it works in the long term. Itis only a short term solution when the methods are applied to too many people. How long has slavery exsisted as an instution of mankind? As long as recorded history- so apparently shooting and torturing segments of society can be long term. I am not advocating the practice mind you, just pointing out an obvious fact of history.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-21 15:32:03

Do individual people unrelated to the origination of the policy have full authority to suggest changes of the Los Harcones policy drafts, and what criteria are employed to say which suggestions will be implemented? Does Los Harcones have an equivalent to the memo/ultimatum common in bureaucratic heirarchies?

Mr. Edwards:

Anyone can suggest changes to policy drafts, even visiting anthropologists. When considering changes to drafts, the Los Horconans pay special attention to the long-term consequences of policy proposals (they do not like being bitten by "unintended consequences"). Their policy drafts are not ultimatums and cannot be such. They are trying to build a society that does not have norms enforcers (i.e., police) and so they realize that they cannot operate by ultimatum.

Los Horcones is small; only about 45 people. It is not appropriate to think of them as having a bureaucracy. I think of them as a neo-tribal society. They use 21st century technology but their social relationships are very face-to-face and personal. The most important difference between Los Horcones and a traditional tribe is that the Los Horconans have a naturalistic, scientific worldview. They do not use assertions about supernatural beings and forces to explain their world or to justify their policies.

Scott

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-21 17:00:59

As a person who is constantly seeking practical solutions to these kind of problems, I would love to see what some of your ideas of how an actual governing structure would be set up on Mars.

Byron:

Here is a governance idea to chew on.

A community of about 1,500 people. Each person over 25 years old is eligible to serve on a Board of Planners. The Board has 15 members. A person can be nominated to the Board by a petition signed by 25 adults (people over 18 years old). Periodically, the names of all nominees are placed into a hat and someone (maybe a virgin) reaches into the hat and draws out the name of the "winner."

These ideas are drawn from the Hutterites (click here)and from B. F. Skinner's utopian novel Walden Two. The Hutterites put the names of community members who are qualified to be their chief executive officer into a hat and then let "God" pick one. They thereby avoid the divisiveness that electioneering can generate. I like the term "Board of Planners" because it focuses attention on the need to take a long-term view. People who take a long-term view are less likely to be plagued by the "unintended consequences" of policy decisions.

Scott G. Beach

C M Edwards · 2002-08-22 11:36:47

Hello Clark.

You wrote:

However, how does the binding arbitration help or even address the situation I have outlined? How does it deal with the centers of power that undermine the basis of the system that makes binding arbitration work?
How can a government enter into "binding arbitration" with a group that wishes to undo the will of the people, yet is also dependant upon these people for exsistence? The system only works if the people can be replaced- how does the system work when the people are not replacable?

And the answer is, ultimately, that I have no answers to any of the questions you ask. These methods alone are not long term solutions. They are acts of desperation.

People also jump out of burning buildings as acts of desperation. How would that address the problem of survival? How would that deal with the fire undermining the structure of the building? How can a person throw themselves from one impending doom to the next?

I have no answer for that, either. I only know that both things happen, and seem quite similar in the amount of forethought given to each.

They happen often enough that we can reasonably expect them, regardless of whether or not they are reasonable.

CME

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-23 02:47:40

Beautifully put, CM ! There is poetry in your soul ... shining sanity in knowing how little we really know. It's a joy to read some of your stuff!!

C M Edwards · 2002-08-23 12:06:20

Hello Scott. Hello Clark.

I've had some good experiences with the idea of using surveys as decision making tools. I've also had experiences which point out possible pitfalls of this method.

For example, one of the best bosses I ever worked for often employed surveys as a preliminary to a vote for making group decisions. She would send out a formal blank survey to everyone by e-mail (about fifteen people) explaining the situation and asking for everyone to submit written suggestions, then use those suggestions as the basis for a vote.

I got to see some of those surveys at intermediate stages, and I can assure you that this method would never have worked with a simple "one person, one vote" voting scheme, nor do I believe the resulting morass of suggestions would have been at all helpful in a simple bureaucratic review. The trouble is, it was a very rare thing that anyone making suggestions ever limited themselves. No matter what was being done, if people had a choice between their own best interests or efficiency or the common good, self-interest won out nearly every time. The situation was particularly bad if scarce resources were up for distribution. Then it seemed that everyone had to try to swim up and take a bite.

The way my boss avoided information overload was, once all the opinions were in, she would remove suggestions which were inherently unworkable (I never heard back from her about our "Mickey Mouse for Mayor" campaign, for example... a minor disappointment, but I lived), compile a list of all distinct suggestions, and then redistribute that list for the vote. All voters were strictly required to prioritize the list and return it to her as part of their day's assignment. Then it was just a matter of adding points. Whatever the top priorities were, those entries got the most points, and whatever got the most points from everyone combined was considered the most favored solution.

It worked most of the time. I only saw the system break down once, when not one person could agree on a common suggestion out of dozens submitted. Then she fell back on bureaucratic dictatorial authority and made the call for us. With all the bickering required for not two people in fifteen to have a single idea in common, having someone around with the power to put us together and make us look like a group was a godsend.

Clark, I used to work in a marketing department at a hospital. The policy there was that every clerical task had to have an associated list of procedures, in writing, for performing the job. The ideal was that in an emergency you could pull in anyone passing by in the hall to perform clerical duties, freeing some of the nursing staff. (There were rumors circulating that some departments were already doing this, but that's a whole other letter.... ) Perhaps extensive use of detailed procedures and cross training could alleviate some of the danger of groups seizing power by a monopoly on vital skills.

Even so, no one could have replaced the doctors, and they knew it.

Hmm...

CME

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-23 23:27:38

Clark, I used to work in a marketing department at a hospital. The policy there was that every clerical task had to have an associated list of procedures, in writing, for performing the job.

Mr. Edwards:

I once worked as the Document Administrator of a company that was ISO 9000 certified. Under the ISO (International Standards Organization) system a company does what its says and says what it does. Each job and each task of a job is written down in a "Work Instrucion" and each Work Insruction is written in a prescribed format. Each employee is required to periodically review and update the Work Instructions related to his job. This insures that if he is promoted into a higher position in the company's governance structure the person who takes is previous job will have a complete, detailed, up-to-date set of instructions for performing that job.

To insure that Work Instructions are being properly maintained, the company hires auditors who read Work Instructions and then watch what employees do in order to determine whether the employees are actually doing their jobs as described in the Work Instruction. This high level of monitoring and control is essential to a company that is building warheads and rockets that can deliver those warheads to Moscow or elsewhere. It would also be essential to martian settlements, where small mistakes could cost the lives of hundreds or thousands of people. If I were going to live in a martian settlement, I would want that settlement to obtain and maintain an ISO certification.

Scott

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 04:37:43

If power is life on Mars, those who control the power, control life.
Imagine a situation whereby capitalism is the economic engine of choice for Mars. Every person can receive compensation for their labor based on the demand and supply rules established by a free-market.
The Energy Technicians, the ones that make sure the nuclear reactors are working, decide they as a group do not like a certain law passed by the democratically elected government. The Energy Technicians declare that they will go on strike, thereby endangering the saftey of everyone in the colony unless the laws passed by the government are undone.
Imagine that the group of energy technicans numbers just a few- but they are in agreement in maintaining their strike.
What do you do?
What can a government do?
How do you peacefully resolve the situation?
How do you prevent this situation?
Now, imagine the Ecological Technicans threaten to strike, endangering the air supply (bio-regeneration) and food supply. What are the options available to society in response to their threats or demands?
Any Mars Society will be composed of highly trained, highly specialized individuals- that's the only way to achieve the effeciency neccessary to make living on mars practical and doable.
As the people become more specialized, society makes an investment in them, expecting a greater return in their effeciency and ability to do the highly specialized things they are needed to do. A mechanic on strike has limited effect on our life- but a trauma physician on strike has a greater effect.
Take the current dispute with dock workers threatening to strike- if they do, it would effect the entire US economy (about a trillion dollars worth of economic damage potential).
So, what kind of government system is practical when small groups of individuals can effectively band together (based on critical skill sets) and run the show (or have effec tive veto of any legitimate decision made by a government)?

This is only an issue if you allow Nations or States to form. As proposed earlier, If you simply had a weak planitary government, and highly independant city-states, such a problem.

The Dock workers grandmother in Kentucky is most likely to have very little financial impact from the dock strike.

Environmental or Energy engineers of a domed city might threaten to turn off the power, but they would be killing their own familys along with all the others.

Capitalism is simply a new form of tyranny. I would hope that martians might extend personal liberty into economics as well.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-12 09:16:49

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-02 06:39:02

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#2 2002-08-02 07:46:20

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#3 2002-08-03 22:52:34

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#4 2002-08-13 19:39:46

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#5 2002-08-14 22:33:33

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#6 2002-08-15 02:22:23

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#7 2002-08-15 11:49:22

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#8 2002-08-15 13:02:09

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#9 2002-08-16 15:34:47

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#10 2002-08-19 12:06:40

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#11 2002-08-19 12:42:35

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#12 2002-08-19 12:49:29

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#13 2002-08-20 11:51:47

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#14 2002-08-20 12:06:10

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#15 2002-08-20 18:54:56

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#16 2002-08-21 11:51:48

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#17 2002-08-21 12:02:26

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#18 2002-08-21 15:32:03

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#19 2002-08-21 17:00:59

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#20 2002-08-22 11:36:47

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#21 2002-08-23 02:47:40

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#22 2002-08-23 12:06:20

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#23 2002-08-23 23:27:38

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#24 2002-10-02 04:37:43

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

#25 2022-06-12 09:16:49

Re: Government on Mars - ...what are the options?

Board footer